Finding Humility: When God Has to Write Twice

PITT

21 Jul 2025 — 13 min read

The following is a satirical open letter from God, who apparently needs to clarify some things. Again.

Jul 20, 2025

It's Me again. God.

I need to be honest - I'm a little hurt. You read My letter and decided it wasn't really from Me. That's... wow. I mean, I get doubted a lot, but usually by atheists, not by people who claim to speak for Me.

You said you could "tell it's not satire." Fascinating. You know, I gave humans many gifts like opposable thumbs, the ability to love, consciousness, learning; but I don't recall handing out the power to see through clearly labeled satire and gaze into people's hearts and know their intent. That's actually My department. Maybe you're confusing yourself with Me again? It happens.

So let Me address a few things:

First, you keep saying you "used to be trans." Child[1], I was there. I remember exactly what happened. You struggled with your gender identity for a bit, found it challenging (because society makes it challenging - I wish you all wouldn’t), and then decided it was easier to conform. That's fine - your journey is your journey. But now you're weaponizing that journey against people who found their truth. That's like someone who tried veganism for a month becoming a professional anti-vegetable lobbyist.

Second, about your "God made us male and female" line - yes, I did make males and females. I also made intersex people, which you conveniently forgot. But more importantly, let Me tell you something about how I create:

I made all the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea. Do you find the flying fish and counsel them on betraying this binary? Do you recriminate the water fowl for their unholy audacity to exist both swimming in the sea AND walking on land? What about swamps? Not quite land, not quite water - do you drain all the swamps to keep them holy and righteous?

No.

I. Do. Not. Create. In. Binaries.

I made sunrises and sunsets, but I also made dawn, noon, and dusk. I made land and sea, but I also made beaches and swamps. I'm actually quite fond of spectrums. I literally made clownfish and frogs that change sex when needed. Clearly, I'm not as invested in your gender binaries as you are. Binaries are more of a human obsession - you folks love your either/or thinking. I'm more of a both/and deity.

Here's something particularly rich: You call yourself "same-sex attracted" while following "traditional Christianity." So you acknowledge that orientation can be complex, that you can be attracted to one thing while choosing another path - but you can't extend that same complexity to gender? That's not theology, that's just selective blindness. Truly there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

And speaking of theology - "fledgling Christian"? Maybe master "love thy neighbor" before appointing yourself My spokesperson on who's spiritually valid. I've seen your article about trans people having "gendered souls" being anti-Christian. You simultaneously argue souls don't have gender (when trans people claim them) but do have gender (when you assign them to male/female categories). Pick a lane, or better yet, realize I made all the lanes.

You wrote: "He did not make us trans, society made us trans."

Record scratch

Wait, wut?

Hold up a divine second. Society made trans people? The same society that kicks trans kids out of their homes? The same society that requires therapy letters, court orders, and medical gatekeeping just to exist authentically? The society that bans them from bathrooms? That society? That's like saying society makes left-handed people while simultaneously forcing them to write with their right hand, or saying society creates diabetes while banning insulin.

That's not theology, that's just gaslighting with a crucifix

Oh, and that bit about Me not making anyone "cis" or "gay"? Buddy, I made everyone. Every. Single. One. The trans ones, the cis ones, the gay ones, the straight ones, the "still figuring it out" ones, the boring ones, the fabulous ones. I don't do manufacturing defects. When I say "I knew you in the womb," that includes knowing that some of you would be trans. Surprise! Omniscience means I actually know everything.

One of my kids wrote some quotes, so let me quote them here. Hmmm, ah, one of your favorites! Psalm 139:13: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." Yeah baby! You love that verse when you think it supports your argument, but here's the hard truth for you to swallow: I do, in fact, knit trans people together in their mothers' wombs. And gay people. And bi people. And non-binary people. And all sorts of people you haven't even discovered yet. I know their futures and have it all mapped out. Well, the major points anyhow, your free will fills in the details.

Why? To teach you. To give mankind the briefest glimpse into what My Son's love was like - how great His love and kindness and tolerance is for ALL My children. In the capacity I gave you to solve problems and save lives, to better seek to understand one another's lived experiences and share infinite perspectives for growth.

Through trans people, you may grasp, just for a fraction of a second, what it is like to take part in the joy of creation - from wood to chair, from wheat to bread, from fruit to wine. From sick, deformed, frail, and injured, to whole, hale, hearty, healthy, and happy, thriving people. Because you can make things better! Because you need not suffer needlessly! Because you can love one without judgment, seeing past the wrapper, acts, and deeds and finding a fellow human, and loving one another in your shared humanity. Like I do. Like Jesus does. Like I told you all to do, and like I am trying to teach you all to do.

Every trans person who transitions with medical care is a testament to humanity's divine capacity to learn, grow, and heal. Every parent who loves their trans child unconditionally glimpses My love for all of you. Every doctor who provides gender-affirming care participates in My work of making people whole.

You know, there was this young trans woman on a talk show who said it better than any theologian ever could: "God made me and I’m not a mistake." THAT'S WHAT I am talking about! THAT'S understanding my divine creation. One sentence from her carries more truth than your entire essay. She gets it - she knows I don't make mistakes. You should listen to her instead of speaking for Me.

About your "two paths to make sexuality holy" comment - I count at least seven, but who's counting? Oh right, I am. I'm literally counting every hair on your head right now. (You're at 97,842, by the way. The stress of maintaining theological inconsistencies is causing some thinning.)

Your "offer of peace" while promoting ideas that harm My trans children is like offering someone a sandwich while standing on their neck. That's not peace - that's just violence with a smile.

You know what really gets Me? You positioned yourself as the victim here. Someone wrote a satirical piece, and a gentle one at that, where I essentially said "Hey, maybe check with Me before speaking for Me," and you called it hate mail. Meanwhile, you're out here telling My trans children they're spiritually broken. Do you see the issue? No? Let Me get my divine highlighter...we will break this down.

For now, I'll keep this simple: Stop. Speaking. For. Me.

If someone wants to know what I think about them being trans, they can ask Me directly. And here's a spoiler alert: I'm going to tell them they're loved, they're valid, and they're exactly who I made them to be.

With exasperated but eternal love,

God

P.S. Yes, this is still satire. The fact that you can't tell is... concerning.

P.P.S. Orthodoxy IS fun. So is letting people be themselves.

P.P.P.S. Angels are terrifying wheels of eyes that scream "BE NOT AFRAID!" If trans artists depicting anguished angels bothers you, you haven't read your own book.

The Mirror of Satire

What J.S. Kasimir's Response Reveals

Okay, let's step back from the divine comedy and talk about what just happened here. Because Kasimir's response to our satirical piece is actually more revealing than their original article - and not in the way they intended.

Why We Use Satire (And Why It Bothers Them)

Satire has been the weapon of the powerless against the powerful since Aristophanes was roasting Athenian politicians[2]. We use it because sometimes the most effective way to expose absurdity is to reflect it back through a funhouse mirror. When someone claims to speak for God about who is and isn't spiritually valid, having God write them a letter saying "I never said that" isn't just funny - it's a powerful rhetorical reversal.

But here's what's fascinating: Kasimir looked at obvious satire - labeled satire, comedically structured satire - and insisted it wasn't "really" satire. Why? Because effective satire holds up a mirror, and they didn't like what they saw reflected back.

This is not the first time a reader has made this error: let me remind you of Holly MathNerd’s example of this.

What Makes It Undeniably Satire

My original piece literally follows the same format as other prominent satirical works:

Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (outrageous premise to make serious point)
The Onion's articles (fictional framework for real criticism)
Voltaire's letters (using correspondence format for satire)

Saying it's "not really satire" is like saying The Onion isn't really satire because they really hate politicians, or The Colbert Report wasn't satire because Colbert really had opinions, or even that SNL isn't satire because they really think some politicians are absurd. It’s ridiculous, the fact that one has an opinion makes the satire more pointed. That is the idea.

The hallmarks of satire are all present and accounted for:

Exaggeration: The fact that God has celestial coffee and attends church potlucks with trans folks is part of the exaggeration at play.
Juxtaposition: I crafted this with a divine authority+modern day language, plus additional more modern day/human things.
Clear and specific target: This is obvious, religious authorities and/or speaking as if one claiming to know God’s mind about, well, anything. In this case specifically a thing they seem to know really well that god definitely wouldn’t like.
Purpose: Using humor to expose the absurdity of the claims being made couched in the idea that anyone can speak for god.

Funny how God always whispers His supposed hatred of marginalized people exclusively to those in power. Even more convenient how that has always seemed to line up historically with the people they really don’t like.

The Proof It's Good Effective Satire

Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was good satire, but I thought it was good fun, and people seemed to like it. What I mean is that this is a good example of satire because it made them uncomfortable.

Good.

Satire should do four things; discomfort its targets - they called it hate mail; they understood the criticism - they knew exactly what I was satirizing; they felt compelled to respond - ineffective satire gets ignored, good satire raises hackles and garners responses exactly like this. Or Holly MathNerd; they tried to reframe it - a classic defensive response is key to identifying effective satire.

This defensive response only highlights the evidence that not only did they receive it as satire, but the each point hit its target. So they had to find a way to deflect, to make it about something else.

Bottom line: my original piece is, more or less, textbook satire. It's not just satire, it's effective satire. How do we know? Because Kasimir felt the need to defensively insist it wasn't "really" satire while simultaneously responding to all the points it made.

The fact that they claim to be able to see through the satire to my "real" meaning is actually them admitting they understood exactly what I was satirizing. You can't claim something isn't satire while also claiming to understand what it's satirizing!

The Mirror Test: What Each Side Saw

When I wrote that first piece, I held up a mirror that showed:

Someone claiming divine authority they don't have
A "fledgling Christian" appointing themselves as God's spokesperson
Theological inconsistencies dressed up as certainty
Harmful ideas wrapped in religious language

But when Kasimir looked at that same mirror, they saw:

"Hate mail"
Someone "mocking their faith"
An attack that required a defensive response

This is telling. Good satire doesn't mock faith - it mocks the misuse of faith. It doesn't attack believers - it challenges those who weaponize belief against vulnerable people.

They know their original article was an intrusion into others' spiritual lives, so they're projecting that intrusion back onto me.

My satire could have ACTUALLY mocked prayer or their practices ("Oh, you still do that silly talking-to-the-sky thing?") but instead I affirmed prayer as valid communication with God. The fact that they see mockery where there's only affirmation shows they're reading through a defensive lens where any criticism amount to an attack on their faith.

The Projection is Coming From Inside the House

Here's where it gets really interesting. In their original article, Kasimir claimed trans people have an "obsession with demons, tarot, and religion." They wrote 2,000+ words of theological analysis about trans people's spiritual state. But when someone writes satire about their theological claims? That's "hate mail" and "mocking faith."

So let me get this straight: Writing extensive theological essays diagnosing an entire community's issues as being wrapped in a spiritual crisis? That's normal. Writing satire about those essays? That's obsession?

The projection is so bright you could use it to screen movies on the moon.

The Rhetoric of False Civility

Let's break down the rhetorical devices at play in Kasimir's response:

The Non-Apology Apology: "I'm sorry for the distress my words caused you" is a textbook deflection. They're not sorry for spreading harmful ideas about trans people - they're sorry we had feelings about it[3]. This is like saying "I'm sorry you got wet" while still holding the hose.

The Authority Stack: "Having once been trans" + "fledgling Christian" = somehow qualified to speak for all trans people AND God. That's like me claiming expertise on all marriages because I got divorced once[4].

The Civility Trap: Ending with "I offer peace" and "I have no interest in fighting" is a classic power move. They get to promote harmful ideas, then position any pushback as aggression they're too noble to engage with. It's the rhetorical equivalent of taking a dump in the pool and then complaining about the smell when someone points it out.

The Victim Reversal: Framing satire as "hate mail" allows them to position themselves as the persecuted party while actively promoting ideas that harm trans people. It's DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) dressed in their Sunday best[5].

The Theological Pretzel

The core logical inconsistency deserves its own analysis. According to Kasimir:

God makes bodies (but apparently only perfectly male and female ones)
Society makes gender identity (but only for trans people, not cis people)
Cis people are naturally aligned with God's plan (but this isn't "society making them cis")

Remember the swamp metaphor from God's letter? Kasimir's theology insists on rigid binaries (land/water) while ignoring that God clearly loves creating spectrums and in-betweens. Flying fish exist. Beaches exist. Swamps exist. Trans people exist.

This theological pretzel gets even more twisted when you add their claim about "gendered souls." They simultaneously argue:

Souls having gender is anti-Christian (when trans people claim it)
But souls must have gender (when they assign people to male/female categories)

You can't have it both ways. Either souls have gender (making trans souls possible) or they don't (making their entire argument moot). Keep in mind, I am operating within their own framework, I have not yet broached this bubble and stepped into the world of facts, science, and empirical data. Regardless, this isn't theology - it's selective application of principles based on who you want to exclude. We just bookend it with scripture. The word of God was not meant to be a shield for bigotry and a sword to persecute undesireables. It was mean to be a shield to protect his creation, and sword to defend the least of these, the ones society rejects.

Sadly, this is nothing new. This playbook is older than their Orthodox prayer routine. Religious authorities have claimed God opposes interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and left-handedness. Funny how God always seems to hate whatever makes religious authorities uncomfortable. Yesterday's "abominations" are today's sacraments, but somehow they never learn the pattern.

Why This Matters

This isn't just about one person's confused theology. Kasimir's response represents a broader pattern in how transmisia operates in religious spaces:

Claiming divine authority for personal prejudices
Weaponizing detransition narratives against trans people
Using civility as a shield while promoting harmful ideas
Positioning criticism as persecution

When someone looks at satire (and mine was pretty tame) and sees "hate mail," it tells us they're so invested in their harmful narrative that any challenge feels like an attack. When they insist obvious satire isn't "really" satire, it shows they understand exactly what's being criticized - and they don't like seeing it reflected back at them.

The Ultimate Irony

The deepest irony? My satirical God showed more genuine Christianity than Kasimir's theological treatise. The satirical letter emphasized love, acceptance, and humility before the divine. Kasimir's response emphasized certainty, exclusion, rejection, and speaking for God.

Sometimes satire reveals truth not through what it says, but through how people respond to it. Kasimir's response revealed someone so certain of their own righteousness that they can't even recognize when they're being asked to consider showing basic humility.

And that, dear readers, is why we write satire. Not to mock faith, but to challenge those who would use faith as a weapon. Not to attack believers, but to defend those whom believers attack.

The mirror doesn't lie. The question is whether we're willing to look at what it shows us. Because sometimes what we see staring back isn't the face of God or some faithful servant - it's just our own prejudices wearing a clerical collar.

N.B. To our trans readers facing this kind of religious rejection: The God of Kasimir's imagination is smaller than the love you deserve. Any deity worth worshiping is big enough to contain all of who you are. And to those wrestling with reconciling faith and identity - you don't have to choose. There are affirming communities, theologians, and resources waiting to embrace all of who you are.

[1] Gender neutral usage, of course. I'm God, not a gender essentialist.

[2] Aristophanes. The Clouds. 423 BCE. Yes, even God uses proper citations.

[3] Tannen, D. (2001). I Only Say This Because I Love You: Talking to Your Parents, Partner, Sibs, and Kids When You're All Adults. Random House.

[4] This is hypothetical. God doesn't get divorced. Omnicommitment and all that.

[5] Freyd, J.J. (1997). Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory. Feminism & Psychology, 7(1), 22-32.

*I cranked this out taking a break from another more in-depth essay I am writing. This is not my most refined, in depth, and well written, but I think I covered all the relevant points. Citations could be better.